1) Nobody is denying the witnesses saw something. It is just their interpretation of what was seen that is being questioned. There is a difference. In one case, you are saying the witnesses are lying. In the other, you are stating the witnesses were simply mistaken. The ability of witnesses to accurately report what they have seen is a common problem with UFO reports. Of course, you assume all witnesses are 100% reliable. The real fact surrounding such testimony is that it is not 100% reliable.
2) AFOSI is manned by humans that can make mistakes. Perhaps the investigating officer did not think of a blimp as a source. To me, there are a myriad of possible sources with a blimp being a reasonable possiblity. I would think you would be the one questioning AFOSI. This is during the "dark days" of project GRUDGE where the whole idea was to sweep all UFO reports under the rug (if you believe UFOlogists). AFOSI would simply have stated, we looked into this and it was a blimp/kite/airplane/etc. Apparently, AFOSI suddenly becomes highly reliable when were are talking about a "True" UFO.
At last we get some attempt at an explanation of the debunker’s position – the reasons behind their thinking. Thank you Astrophotographer. Now at least we can have a reasonable debate. You put your arguments. I might either agree or place a counterargument. Thus we progress…
Okay, the witnesses saw something.
You then raise a question about whether the witnesses could have misinterpreted what they saw.
So far so good.
But then…
“i
n one case you say the witnesses were lying” and “
In the other, you are stating the witnesses were simply mistaken.”
Ummm… what? Actually I think it might (and please correct me if I am wrong), it just might be the debunker position to claim that…not me…
Then you state:
“
The ability of witnesses to accurately report what they have seen is a common problem with UFO reports.”
Sure… but that is a general assertion. A generalisation. You NEED to explain precisely how that pertains to THIS case (Rogue River).
Then:
“
Of course, you assume all witnesses are 100% reliable.”
Actually I have NEVER claimed that. This is an assertion that is ENTIRELY without foundation.
..and
“
The real fact surrounding such testimony is that it is not 100% reliable.”
Yes, agreed, but we DO KNOW PRECISELY under what conditions eyewitness testimony can be unreliable (note “can be” – meaning not always even under those conditions) and we can therefore account for those conditions in our assessments. If you claim the witnesses were unreliable in the Rgue River case then you must trell me HOW it was that they were unreliable. Merely stating the general “witnesses are unreliable” does NOT make it so.
Now… before moving to your next section… I have provided some counterarguments to your own arguments. For the debate to proceed, you then must address my concerns. Will you do that?
Now…
“
AFOSI is manned by humans that can make mistakes.”
Yes, a general assertion that humans make mistakes…but again, how is that directly relevant to this case? Were mistakes made? And if so where?
“
Perhaps the investigating officer did not think of a blimp as a source.”
But this presupposes that Agent brooks did not consider “blimps” to be an explanation… we have no way of knowing either way. You contend he did NOT think of blimps. I contend he DID think of blimps. Therefore an impasse is reached. We must agree to disagree on this one and remove it from consideration as having a bearing on the matter.
“
To me, there are a myriad of possible sources with a blimp being a reasonable possibility”
Now here you make a value judgement (“reasonable possibility”). I contend that you need to SHOW, using “reasonable” evidence that blimp is - not only a reasonable possibility - but also why you chose THAT possibility over the “myriad” of other possibilities you raise the spectre of. And remember, a blimp factory nearby is NOT enough. You MUST show reliable evidence that blimps actually flew in the Rogue River area. For example, I live 50 miles from an airport. That does NOT mean I see ANY planes from that airport fly over my location.
Finally:
“
I would think you would be the one questioning AFOSI. This is during the "dark days" of project GRUDGE where the whole idea was to sweep all UFO reports under the rug (if you believe UFOlogists). AFOSI would simply have stated, we looked into this and it was a blimp/kite/airplane/etc. Apparently, AFOSI suddenly becomes highly reliable when were are talking about a "True" UFO."
No, why would I be questioning the ability of the AFOSI? In fact, if you notice in the OP, I list all their reports as evidence. I DO claim the AirForce did the best job they could under the circumstances. I further contend that if the AFOSI seriously thought “blimp” to have been even a remote possibility they would have jumped on that explanation with alacrity – instead they reached the (entirely unreasonable IMO) “kite” explanation from over 340 miles away – when the blimp explanation was much closer to hand. Besides…”blimp” does NOT match the eyewitness descriptions.
So now I have placed my counterarguments to your original arguments. For the debate to proceed rationally, you must now counter or accept my positions. THAT is how a debate works. Will you follow through Astrophotographer?
